Attorney-at-Law

DOES IRS READ MY BLOG?

In Uncategorized on 10/11/2017 at 01:53

What a thought. It’s enough to make me take a pass on the two T. C. Memos that showed up on 10/10/17, although John V. Hawkbey, 2017 T. C. Memo. 199, filed 10/10/17, sorely tempted me.

But as I write this at 0125 on 10/11/17, I’ll forego temptation.

However, I can’t refuse Branden Forbush Jones, Docket No. 19034-17SL, filed 10/10/17. There are two docket numbers for BFJ, and thereby hangs the cliché.

Here’s Ch J L Paige (“Iron Fist”) Marvel with the scoop. And watch the dates; they matter.

“…the Court received a petition, attached to which was a copy of a notice of determination concerning collection action dated August 8, 2017, issued to petitioner with respect to taxable years 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015. The petition had been sent by a designated private delivery service with a ship date of September 7, 2017, but was not accompanied by payment of the Court’s $60.00 filing fee. To protect petitioner’s statutory time period within which to begin a case, the Court filed that petition to commence a case at Docket No. 19034-17SL and issued an Order which directed petitioner to pay the filing fee for that case on or before October 30, 2017.

“Meanwhile, on September 11, 2017, the Court received from petitioner a second petition, attached to which was a copy of the notice of determination dated August 8, 2017, issued to petitioner with respect to taxable years 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015. That petition had been sent by a designated private delivery service with a ship date of September 8, 2017, and was accompanied by the $60.00 filing fee. It was filed to commence a case at Docket No. 19273-17SL.” Order, at p. 1.

Remember that this is a CDP case, and August has 31 days. So if BFJ stumps up the sixty bucks as directed, 19034 is timely. But 19273 isn’t; it’s a day late and much more than a dollar short.

So IRS files a motion to dismiss for untimeliness, and requests the Court to close for duplication.

Sound familiar? No? Then see my blogpost “Another Taishoff ‘Oh Please,’” 9/24/14.

Close the timely petition for duplication and dismiss the untimely one for late service. Down in flames goes BFJ.

Except.

“…respondent then filed at Docket No. 19273-17SL a Motion To Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, on the ground that the petition in that case was not timely filed within the period prescribed by section 6330(d)(1) or 7502 of the Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.). Respondent also explained that the case was subject to closure as a duplicate of the petition filed at Docket No. 19034-17SL. The motion indicated that petitioner had no objection thereto, provided that the filing fee paid at Docket No. 19273-17SL could be applied to Docket No. 19034-17SL.” Order, at p.1.

Well, what a sea change! IRS does the right thing.

Of course, Ch J Iron Fist gives BFJ the credit. And wipes out the late-filed petition for duplication.

Does IRS read my blog? What a thought.

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: